Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

The video is definitely something he wants to be taken at face value and not questioned. That much is clear. And he seems to display almost no correct understanding of Newtonian mechanics on his own. I surmise his approach was to assume that whoever made that video must have been very smart, and therefore probably smarter than any critics that might be encountered. Therefore he could just repackage that video and pretend also to be as smart. But it's a cargo-cult approach, obviously. So now there's just gaslighting, arguments trying to get us to agree that the video is correct even when we've presented good reasons why it isn't, reasons he can't address and doesn't want to allow to exist.

Our poster concedes that rockets work in an atmosphere, where there is air to push off from. He denies they work in a vacuum. Because his model appears to predict what is observed when rockets fly in air, he believes it is a correct model. He is uninterested in why his model is wrong. He is similarly uninterested in learning the principles of physics that would also lead to understanding why his purported analogies are inapt. In sum, he has constructed a self-consistent ball of error that includes everything he might want to casually observe, but excludes space travel.

If rockets don't go in to space how does GPS work?
How do satellite phones work?
Why can we see the ISS fly over?

He has conceded he doesn't have answers for any of these, but speculates that there may exist "technology" he doesn't know about and can't describe which accounts for these apparent products of space travel. In other words, after chiding everyone for their "religious" faith in NASA and space, he has simply invoked ineffable miracles to account for his beliefs.

It's pretty clear at this point which of us is exhibiting the religious-style belief.

If rockets don't go in to space how does GPS work?
How do satellite phones work?
Why can we see the ISS fly over?

I suppose rockets could reach orbit while there's enough atmosphere to push against But separation and other maneuvering wouldn't work for lack of atmosphere. This means the ISS is empty, as docking wouldn't be possible so the crew and supplies could never get to it. Quite a lot to spend on maintaining the false narrative of space flight, really.

Also, the Hubble photos must be faked. And other things too ...

__________________"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

Our poster concedes that rockets work in an atmosphere, where there is air to push off from. He denies they work in a vacuum. Because his model appears to predict what is observed when rockets fly in air, he believes it is a correct model. He is uninterested in why his model is wrong. He is similarly uninterested in learning the principles of physics that would also lead to understanding why his purported analogies are inapt. In sum, he has constructed a self-consistent ball of error that includes everything he might want to casually observe, but excludes space travel.

IIRC and I'm not searching you labelled as narcissist and through all this Gish gallop that really does appear to be correct.

He has conceded he doesn't have answers for any of these, but speculates that there may exist "technology" he doesn't know about and can't describe which accounts for these apparent products of space travel. In other words, after chiding everyone for their "religious" faith in NASA and space, he has simply invoked ineffable miracles to account for his beliefs.

It's pretty clear at this point which of us is exhibiting the religious-style belief.

In this instance, though, I do care how ******* runny it is. But nobody's bringing forth the fromage de la belle France.

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Our poster concedes that rockets work in an atmosphere, where there is air to push off from. He denies they work in a vacuum. Because his model appears to predict what is observed when rockets fly in air, he believes it is a correct model. He is uninterested in why his model is wrong. He is similarly uninterested in learning the principles of physics that would also lead to understanding why his purported analogies are inapt. In sum, he has constructed a self-consistent ball of error that includes everything he might want to casually observe, but excludes space travel.

I don't suppose he has explained exactly where the atmosphere ends and the rockets stop working?

__________________Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

I don't suppose he has explained exactly where the atmosphere ends and the rockets stop working?

That's a good question for him, and I had really never thought of it in that context since the whole idea of "pushing" off atmosphere making a rocket work is so wrong at many levels. But you can't fix stupid.

I know, I've finished my daily glass of red wine(whine) and no one brought me any cheese. bah humbug

Humbugs are solid, so throwing one will generate a propulsive force. Tantrums are abstract, so neither solid nor fluid. There's scope for a valuable experiment here. Try throwing a tantrum, and if it flings you backwards across the room then you'll know that abstract concepts have some of the attributes of a solid.

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Still like to know which ones s/he saw which seemed to go into the water, too. Presumably our intrepid OP saw them fly up, arc back downwards, and land with enough clarity where an astute observer would assume that water was the impact point...or landing zone...or whatever.

Or maybe s/he means that the water is actually above us! Explains why the sky is blue, of course.

__________________"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet

I don't intend to let him off the hook. That's what his answer is, but I certainly don't accept it. It's just "I don't know," with extra steps.

If the argument is, "X doesn't exist," and the rebuttal is, "But Y is a consequent of X. If not by X, then whence Y?" and the answer is "I don't know," the argument fails and the rebuttal succeeds. The claimant is on the hook to show other alternative antecedents, and generally to prove that the alternatives are more favorable or parsimonious in context.

Here he just says we can't place limits on technology we don't know about, so it's not possible to categorically deny the existence of alternatives. It's still "I don't know." And he's still on the hook to show how "I don't know" is more parsimonious in context. I can't imagine how even the very concepts of parsimony and "I don't know" are compatible. By definition if you don't know the answer, it can't be the parsimonious explanation.

Very often this sort of argument becomes circular. He accepts axiomatically his own belief. And he is forced to accept observation that appears to be things like satellites and space stations. But to that sort, this pair of premises constitutes proof that there "must" be some secret alternative technology being employed. The observation must be explained, and the axiom cannot be violated, so that proves there "must" be alternative technology even if we can't immediately discern what it must look like.

I don't understand why we don't just do rocket launches from Australia so they can just fall into space. Seems like it would save a lot of fuel.

__________________- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

I saw two space shuttle launches in my life. Both of them took off, I saw them go up, up up and then they landed many days later.

I want to know, if they didn't go off into space, where the hell did they go?

And if the complaint is that these were just low-earth orbit, then what about the Apollo missions? These guys were gone for days and days after take off before landing in ocean. Where were they if not in space?

They couldn't have been flying around in the atmosphere. If the physics of rockets in space, imagine the engineering to keep a craft floating around the atmosphere for 10 days?

Rockets flying in space is a far simpler explanation than any alternative.

__________________"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

I saw two space shuttle launches in my life. Both of them took off, I saw them go up, up up and then they landed many days later.

I want to know, if they didn't go off into space, where the hell did they go?

And if the complaint is that these were just low-earth orbit, then what about the Apollo missions? These guys were gone for days and days after take off before landing in ocean. Where were they if not in space?

They couldn't have been flying around in the atmosphere. If the physics of rockets in space, imagine the engineering to keep a craft floating around the atmosphere for 10 days?

Rockets flying in space is a far simpler explanation than any alternative.

Not if the mindset is blonkers and "know" rockets can't work in a vacuum, similar to the Earth is flat, Apollo hoax, JFK conspiracy, need I continue?

I saw two space shuttle launches in my life. Both of them took off, I saw them go up, up up and then they landed many days later.

I want to know, if they didn't go off into space, where the hell did they go?

And if the complaint is that these were just low-earth orbit, then what about the Apollo missions? These guys were gone for days and days after take off before landing in ocean. Where were they if not in space?

They couldn't have been flying around in the atmosphere. If the physics of rockets in space, imagine the engineering to keep a craft floating around the atmosphere for 10 days?

Rockets flying in space is a far simpler explanation than any alternative.

If you think about it, by the time those Apollo guys made it to space there was very little rocket still with them. Most of the rocket was indeed in the ocean as Gingervytes has claimed. OMG! Maybe Gingervytes is right!

__________________Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

Okay so what if Theseus launches a rocket to space, but on the way to space every single piece is replaced so by the time it gets to space every single part of the rocket has been replaced?

__________________- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Right, buoyancy. Smoke does not rise. Smoke is a solid aerosol entrained in a column of heated air. In a perfectly quiescent environment, smoke will fall to the ground just as effectively as dust, or a handful of marbles.

And it will fall quite nicely when entrained with cool air. Iíve observed this while we were poking ceiling tiles out in a grocery store that had a fire on the roof. Some of the smoke got into the cool air of the false ceiling space, and drifted down when we opened the ceiling checking for extension.

That was because the smoke was in air that was denser than the ambient air mass. It had nothing to do with an atmospheric pressure gradient.

I donít think space travel exists, but who know what other technology is out there. By they certainly do no go into space with rockets

Gingervytes, I repeat:

Iíve personally built (as part of a team), integrated, tested, observed the launch of, and operated spacecraft, including postflight testing. Your claim is observed to be wrong.

Any response? Or are you going to continue ignoring refutations like this one?

Ya know, if it was me, and I was getting my head handed to me by people who actually do spaceflight for a living, as well as an assortment of educated laymen, I would stop and ask myself if maybe I was wrong, and investigate the criticisms of my claims, because itís more important to me to get it right than to cling to my beliefs on an anonymous Internet forum. How about you? Would you like to learn something?

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.